Rhythm, just as I can recognize that your post was designed, based on its specified complexity, I can then theorize that it was designed. The same goes for scenarios in the natural realm.

No, you couldn't, apples and oranges. Have we moved on then, done with the "defend your assertions" bit. Off to bicker about something else? Don't talk to me about my posts, talk to me about these "designs" you seem to believe are so obvious. Is my post alive? Are we lacking a suitable explanation for my posts? Can you say nothing of the design or designer from them? Just diversionary bullshit.

I've had to burst this bubble before, and you may not believe me, but I don't actually enjoy doing so. ID is not science, we see no evidence of design. What ID is, and what we do see, is politics and religion. Now, if this notion of "design" really fascinated the shit out of you, if you're really interested, please please pursue that interest, life is fascinating, it's fascinating without this bullshit thrown over it, and it's even more fascinating because this stuff is demonstrable bullshit.

(March 11, 2012 at 10:29 pm)black36 Wrote: Rhythm, just as I can recognize that your post was designed, based on its specified complexity, I can then theorize that it was designed. The same goes for scenarios in the natural realm.

No its a hypothesis because you can't test or prove the assertion. I recognize you are not understanding the difference between Hypothesis and Theory so I hypothesize you are and idiot. Get it?

There might be a way to test that, lol.

Rhythm, So your answer of "no" qualifies as checkmate? You provide a response , symbolized by a specifically complex ordering of letters, spacing, and punctuation, which are relevant to the conversation, and I am wrong to theorize that said post was intelligently designed?

(March 11, 2012 at 10:38 pm)Rhythm Wrote: There might be a way to test that, lol.

But I'm lazy so it will never be done lol.

You are wrong to "theorize" that you can make this observation without any reference to the design or designer. Isn't that what you claim that ID does? Well, it doesn't, and neither do you. So, in this case, yes, my "no" is a checkmate. Can't win them all. You chose the field, not me. No sense in being frustrated when your opponent has more practice in this particular game. In your defense, I have home field advantage.

(March 11, 2012 at 10:36 pm)Insanity x Wrote:

(March 11, 2012 at 10:29 pm)black36 Wrote: Rhythm, just as I can recognize that your post was designed, based on its specified complexity, I can then theorize that it was designed. The same goes for scenarios in the natural realm.

No its a hypothesis because you can't test or prove the assertion. I recognize you are not understanding the difference between Hypothesis and Theory so I hypothesize you are and idiot. Get it?

Where did you get the idea that ID is just an assertion?

---

(March 11, 2012 at 10:39 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You are wrong to "theorize" that you can make this observation without any reference to the design or designer. Isn't that what you claim that ID does? Well, it doesn't, and neither do you. So, in this case, yes, my "no" is a checkmate. Can't win them all.

Ok, you win. Your post was not intelligently designed.

I was actually talking about your post.. but sure ill bite.

The lack of any reasonable evidence.

Evolution - Vast fossil records and variation in billions of species around the world
ID - We think god did it.

Inquiring minds-"God did what?"

ID-"We make no claims to the design or designer".

Well, you worthless little son of a bitch. Come back to the table when you have cards to play. This pretty much sums up my thoughts about ID.

@ Black How can you be sure that it wasn't, do you have any evidence?